Jump to content

Talk:Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Props to Proto for doing the legwork to handle the split. I'd like to see this article dressed up more. Pics, etc. Also, if/when we get a Terri Schiavo template together, we should get it in for reader navigation.--ghost 28 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Thanks Ghost, much appreciated. It also needs the relevant links and cites bringing over from the main page. Proto t c 30 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)

I remember when Michael Mitchell tried to rob that Florida gun shop to get a gun to go rescue Schiavo. Despite how serious the entire situation was, this was so idiotic it was almost comical. I remember about the first thing I thought was something along the lines of a guy taking a knife to a gun fight.
JesseG July 1, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

And if I remember right, that was the one part of the case that Leno did eventually make a joke about.
JesseG 05:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory section needed

[edit]

Current article needs a tight intro. --Viriditas | Talk 1 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Aftermath

[edit]

Enough time has passed since her death to gather ideas on the significance of the case on public opinion going forward. patsw 00:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved in

[edit]

All the external links to articles, commentary and advocacy have been moved here from the main article. Proto||type 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome / Criminal Cases

[edit]

Does anyone know whatever happened in the cases of Richard Alan Meywes and Michael Mitchell? Last I heard the two had been arrested for the crimes they apparently committed, and in Meywes case formally arraigned. But I haven't heard of what happened afterwards with these two. Does anyone know if they plea-bargined, if they went to trial, and if so what the verdict was? I've been looking and haven't seen anything on the internet about these two.
JesseG 05:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Country Gazette

[edit]

Someone has been adding links to the "North Country Gaztette" to some Schivo related links. Aside from the bad formatting, is this acredible source? Ace-o-aces 05:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a blog. Remove on sight. Proto::► 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proto, now don't go and abuse your sys op status: I looked at your recent edit, dated: 12:42 09 Jan 2007, where you say: "(No, Gordon - it is an article aimed solely to promote a book, and we should not allow Wikipedia to be used for promotional purposes.)," however, I think you have this link confused with another one; Apparently the site is no longer promoting any book.
Anyhow, many websites promote books, so that shouldn't even matter anyway. I've noticed that there was a special category for the Gazette site (questioning financial motives), and I agree with removing that on sight -but many links could be called "blogs" (e.g., Hospice Patients Alliance and Thrown Back Blog, Fr. Rob Johansen to name a few), so if you don't have a problem with these "blogs," under public opinion, you shouldn't worry regarding the Gazette being a so-called blog.
Since use of blogs is permissible in the opinions sections, I am reinstating that link, but I shall agree with you half-way: If the Gazette blog or similar links is used as news, I will agree with a revert and removal.--GordonWatts 08:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I will take it out because it's a non-notable blog unaffiliated with any notable group, which also misrepresents itself as a news source. --Calton | Talk 08:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your choice, but you can't in good faith take out all the links I found unless you can justify before the whole community your actions; Most if all are appropriate links for the subsections.--GordonWatts 08:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re "No. It's a blog. Remove on sight."(above)- Obviously this statement is not at all a rule. There are blogs all over the page. But the "rule" hasn't been corrected either. What's the status. {This unsigned comment was written by MartinGugino at 10:24, 23 January 2007, so says: --GordonWatts 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Correct. Thanks for the accurate feedback; I signed and fixed the paragraph indentation, better even than the legendary HagermanBot! PS: Did you know that bot signed the United States Declaration of Independence for John Hancock, when he was busy using the restroom, left early, and forgot to sign his "John Hancock!" he heh... :-) --GordonWatts 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More help needed to resolve ongoing Schiavo disputes

[edit]

At this diff, we again find Calton causing trouble. He revered my edit, removing every single link that I put in, supposedly because of angst with one particular link that is a blog.

I don't think he is right to oppose that, but at least he makes a half-way argument about not being notable. (I say this to contrast the arguments Proto made about blogs not being acceptable; Of course, he is wrong: Many blog links had been in the article after his edit.)

I will be fine with any consensus by the community on the links in question -if for not other reason than to make Calton stop arguing, a worthwhile motive, but not the best motive, I admit. (We should have as motives simply to make an Encyclopaedia article with sufficient details -and references to back them up.)

So, in short, Terri Schiavo's article seems OK, but help is needed at the Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case article -specifically, the links section.

PS: Any user can look at my recent contributions to see that I am a responsible editor, just in case anyone wants to know. Plus, I was the one who created the pretty Template:TOCcenter template you see at the top of the Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump page and seen in the page history here, which, for some reason, is needed: The Table of Contents doesn't automatically show on the Village Pump's talk page, like it used to -and like it does on this page. Anyone can help here??

In closing, if I am not around to vote, then my "vote" for each and every link enumerated is "add this link," but in the end, if some links are voted down, I would hope that at least some of them could stay -to strengthen the references section.--GordonWatts 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made an edit revision and reverted to a prior stable version, but although I did not include the North County Gazette link, I want to clarify: My "vote" for each link is to "add" -including the Gazette link. I just wanted to clarify that I'm voting "for" its inclusion, and the only reason I don't myself add it is because I'm a peace-living person who does not want to be responsible for World War Three on this wiki.--GordonWatts 09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citations for and against removal of tube

[edit]

Removing some citations so that there are "five and five" is ok I guess, but leaving Kevorikian, who would have killed her, while removing Ralph Nader, who would not have, I think is a mistake, even though I realize that Kevorikian did think that keeping water from her was inhumane. For that reason I am "switching" Nader for Kevorkian. MartinGugino 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Hennessey link to something that refers to Schiavo MartinGugino 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok by me, but you can add back in links to one side if you balance them with links from the opposing side -so long as the links section does not get too large.--GordonWatts 07:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled with the Hennessey link, but could not get one that followed the format AND also linked to a schiavo article. Is it the Question mark in the URL? MartinGugino 01:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Deleted: especially those unable to communicate their health care choices, and
This is the only case where the guardian is looked to. If the patient is able to make a choice, the guardian is not asked. Martin | talk • contribs 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm cleaning up old <citation needed> tags, and this one shows up from 2005. Well, a look at the history shows that it was actually added on 11 Feb 2007. Then I read the passage in question. THEN I read the paragraph after it. Wow. This reads like Original Research. They are both properly tagged now, and I'll be keeping an eye on this article. If citations aren't found soon, I'm going to remove the entire section as Original Research and/or uncited statements. CovenantD 08:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

[edit]

I'm a brand new Wikipedian, and I certainly don't want to re-open old wounds here, but I couldn't help noticing the lopsided References section. By my count there are 11 references "opposed" to removing the tube and only 5 "supportive" of removing the tube. Given that public opinion at the time was overwhelmingly in favor of the Schiavos' right to follow the court order and remove the tube, shouldn't the selection of References reflect more balance? (I fear I've asked this question in a clumsy manner; please excuse!) FarishC (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I took off 4 links from the "opposed" section. 3 of the 4 were broken, and all appear to have been added by somebody promoting his pet website. "Opposed" section still has more links than "supportive" though. 70.246.192.59 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV 2015

[edit]

The offending sentences are: "After complaints that the polls were not actually asking questions that pertained to this case, or asked leading or confusing questions, Zogby did a very specific poll. This poll asked people if they agreed with starving and dehydrating to death a person who was in exactly the same position as Terri. The exact question was "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," The results were very dramatic. 79% said the patient should not be denied food and water, while just 9 percent said the patient should."

I don't see how the question is neutral at all. Yes, withdrawal of feeding tube is essentially denying food and water, but the strong images conjured up by starvation is bound to bias people against approving it. The overwhelming 'no' vote is indicative of this. In the same way using the word 'murder' in e.g. an abortion debate automatically biases people against the life-ending act. This question also neglects to mention the many other factors involved, such as Michael Schiavo's approval, which I'm sure will change the minds of some people.

At the moment I think the sentences should be deleted, but I am only tagging the section since I'm not very familiar with the source or the circumstances of the case. Banedon (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've killed the entire paragraph. The sources used don't seem to pass WP:RS themselves, so we'd need secondary sourcing to indicate the weight, relevance, and reliability of these particular polls. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case&oldid=1223727184"